Does he mean the CFACT billboards?
From the transcript of James Hansen’s testimony before the House of Commons:
Q9 Zac Goldsmith: Just on the politics of that, which I would be interested to know. There is a report in The Guardian today saying that according to an assessment of all the scientific papers on climate change, where there is a verdict on whether we are responsible or not, more than 99% seem to be of the firm view, which Professor Hansen takes, that we are very much the dominant force for the changes that we are seeing. There is as close to a scientific consensus as science allows. It is hard to hope for or imagine a stronger consensus.
Despite that, politically there seems to be a roll-back. There are very many senior political figures, in this country and elsewhere, who are reluctant to embark on any kind of policy journey that would adequately address this issue. Professor Hansen, I am interested to know how much dialogue you have had with climate-sceptical politicians, either in Europe or in the States, and also climate-sceptic scientists. How much exchange do you have with the people who take that view?
Professor Hansen: That is a good question because I think that that dialogue is really important. I can specifically comment on the situation in the United States, but I think it is very analogous to the one in the United Kingdom. I have taken some initiative to speak with conservatives in the United States. A large fraction of our members of the Republican Party, which is the more conservative party, have taken the position that this whole climate thing is a hoax, and, because of the huge amount of advertisement in the media, have even convinced a fraction of the public-perhaps a quarter or a third-that this is all a hoax dreamed up by scientists who want to get research funding, which is, of course, silly.
Conservatives historically in the United States have been the party that has introduced extremely important legislation for environmental protection and for conservation of public lands, going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt a century ago. The thoughtful conservatives know that of course this is not a hoax, and eventually it is going to be clear. If a party continues to be anti-science and pretends that it is a hoax, once it becomes clear it was not a hoax, then the consequences are likely to be that the public demands the Government solves the problem and then the Government takes over. That is the worst possible outcome from a conservative’s point of view. They don’t want the Government taking over, so- [Emphasis added]
PJ both results you state are correct. All I’m saying it isn’t “PRIMARY” to the AGW “CAUSE”. The levels of arrogance and sanctimony can’t be achieved be selfish beliefs (rent-seeking and taxes). While the well educated elite know better they are more than wiling to sacrifice science and the truth for “the greater good” of AGW fictions and the policies that it supports; Taxes, controls and regulations. In the private narrative among liberals it’s “industry” i.e. “capitalism” that is the central evil. They are victims reacting to the consequences. Saving the world. They are savvy enough to conduct the mission in code (political correctness) and euphemisms.
As for the minions who worship AGW? It’s a more mixed bag of willful ignorance and ignorance itself. A hat-tip goes to our public education system and the ability to indoctrinate once neutral academic disciplines such as “science”.
Notice Hansen doesn’t dispute the chart’s validity, he complains about it being used in an ad.
There are “97%” advantages and they are in money and in coverage. Still, the public remains a bit skeptical. How awful for him. Kill or jail the skeptics, I guess. Because, you know, he’s decided he’s right about everything.
The warmists have only themselves to blame. 883 wild and wacky things caused by global warming http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm make them look shrill and stupid.
Even with that solid narrative of serial horrors, they can’t get their basic story right. Bizarre theories of what to measure, how to measure, how to make guesses, how CO2 works (or if it’s really CFCs), the difference between weather and climate, etc. are all over the map.
And then there’s the damnable, undeniable fact that this is being pushed by the Green Left. The Green Left is constantly pushing guilt trips and big-government regulatory schemes. It’s no wonder the global warming movement (and it’s a movement) is associated with the UN’s insidious Agenda 21. People are primed to avoid Green Left crap, if only to avoid the bum-out of their incessant brow-beating. But it’s worse. A recent study found that around half of consumers *avoid* buying products with environmental claims on the packaging.
In short, no, advertising hasn’t convinced the public that global warming is a hoax. *Everything else* has.
I will agree with Hansen on one point, money and research funding is secondary. Those are perks and entitlements to the privileged AGW supporters but not the primary reason for the belief.
We’re talking now about generations of left-wing, anti-market, anti-carbon, EarthDay subculture that has been on campus and in academia at least since the 60’s and has grown in all areas. AGW is ideology. Money might influence a green salesman on the margin but it doesn’t much matter to the elite AGW community or the poor punk student on campus babbling the “Occupy Wall-Street” meme in your face. Something else is going on, something important. Skeptics need to put the “greed” talking points on the back-shelf or a more complex context and start to address the core cultural aspects of the AGW/Green culture if they hope to win longer-term. Regardless if it’s a member of the AGW elite or a minion they don’t view themselves as a form of the “greedy” since they define the word in such a way that excludes them of the charge. Only the “forces” supporting carbon interests could be greedy in their eyes. This same culture block occurs with teacher unions who always think and promote they are abused underpaid workers who are all overqualified for their jobs. It just doesn’t work effectively to attack the fallacy of these beliefs no matter how erroneous they are.
By talking about special interests and money the public doesn’t get the full exposure to exactly how ideological the AGW and Green movements really are. I also suspect many leading skeptics are similarly inclined politically (Left of center) and there is reluctance to alienate these parties and voices by political polarization inside the skeptic community. Hansen’s point while false flagging conservative criticism about “research money” is made effective by skeptics who always dwell on this issue as a priority. It might be neat, quick and easy with a grain of truth but it isn’t primary in the heart of a warmer at most levels. It’s about liberal (socialist) sanctimony, pious green and anti-market virtues and a populist hatred of carbon reality industry in particular. It’s about a political cause and code among tribe members. So by avoiding the primary a troll like Hansen gets to obfuscate the true evil that AGW represents as a political culture.
It isn’t the scientists that are promoting a false AGW claim to gain funding, it’s an avaricious government that wants another excuse to wring more taxes out of us.
MT maybe it is decades of high gas prices and soaring utility costs without any real warming . . $ 5.00 + gasoline will end the E=GREEN movement as it will be rejected by all people even the east coast which is heated using OIL . . no natural gas lines . .?
I hope advertising has had some effect convincing people AGW is a hoax. Considering how little advertising there is, or even exposure in any media other than the web, it’s amazing that climate realism has any purchase at all. It’s a reminder that the AGW crowd may have the mike, but only some of the audience is listening. Gives one a bit of hope.
My my – typical far left thinker – when your dream story collapses blame the critic and the public . . it is those DUMB PEOPLE they just do not know . . blah blah. Just once could they not admit that their theories do not math the facts on the ground?